Romney vs. Obama

[Thiros]

–Gary North, quoted in Albert J. Menendez, Visions of Reality: What Fundamentalist Schools Teach, Prometheus Books, 1993

 

Gary North? That isn't the same Gary North who predicted that the world would end on January 1, 2000, is he?

[PassedOut]

God is the Author of every individual human life, as well as human life generally, and that has been a feature of Christian belief since the very beginning. Similarly, the belief that God does act on a day to day basis to influence the lives of both believers and non believers is a universal feature of christian belief. God sitting in judgement and providing temporal punishment is a fairly common theme.

Belief in Christianity (and the spirit world in general) is a matter of personal opinion (often strongly held opinion, I grant). But I don't know anyone who wishes to force an abortion on a rape victim who believes that god wants her to deliver the child. The problem arises when lawmakers wish to force their own opinions (and requiring a rape victim to bear the child is a particularly barbaric example) on women who think differently.

[nigel_k]

I think you are all missing the point here. Those who are against abortion for religious reasons believe that it is equivalent to killing somebody. Why would you make it legal for someone to kill an innocent child if and only if the killer was raped recently? This is just a total failure to see things from the other side's point of view.

 

The fact that the other side's point of view is utterly inconsistent with fact and logic makes it harder, to be sure. But this view is not new or rare. It is shared by a large percentage of Americans.

[JLOGIC]

fml, got a sweat at least

[onoway]

I think you are all missing the point here. Those who are against abortion for religious reasons believe that it is equivalent to killing somebody. Why would you make it legal for someone to kill an innocent child if and only if the killer was raped recently? This is just a total failure to see things from the other side's point of view.

 

The fact that the other side's point of view is utterly inconsistent with fact and logic makes it harder, to be sure. But this view is not new or rare. It is shared by a large percentage of Americans.

 

It has always been a mystery as to how it is supposedly horrific to abort a foetus of 3 weeks but perfectly ok if not admirable to terrorize and/or murder doctors who perform careful and legal abortions.

 

I also cannot understand how people can justify forcing women to bear children who are not wanted without any concern for what sort of life that child will likely have, nor for the thousands of children already born and in the process of dying in great distress from such simple things as lack of food. It's handy for them that none of the "pro life" people apparently care at all if some children may inherit the sort of life they would be horrified to see anyone inflict on a dog.

 

It all seems a very conveniently compartmentilized morality.

[Winstonm]

I assume this is intended to be humourous? Where in what I wrote is the implication that man `created' evil. Besides which, its not clear that evil is a thing, so much as a lack of a thing.

 

Evil is an idea created by man to give expression to an opinion.

[Winstonm]

I am in no sense whatsoever a crusader against religion but I really would hope that my devout friends do not believe that a pregnancy that comes from a rape is somehow in God's design of the universe and therefore cannot be interfered with. For those who do think in that way, I would insist that they apply this moral imperative only to themselves and let the rest of us deal with practical problems in practical ways. I simply cannot imagine arguing that a woman impregnated by a rapist must bear and raise the child because it is God's will. I was brought up as a member of a church, and quite a rigid one at that, lots of threats of damnation, but this one is beyond me.

Religious nuttery knows no boundaries and is driven by belief in the absolute correctness of the position. Sanity=Belief+Doubt

[gwnn]

It has always been a mystery as to how it is supposedly horrific to abort a foetus of 3 weeks but perfectly ok if not admirable to terrorize and/or murder doctors who perform careful and legal abortions.

 

I also cannot understand how people can justify forcing women to bear children who are not wanted without any concern for what sort of life that child will likely have, nor for the thousands of children already born and in the process of dying in great distress from such simple things as lack of food. It's handy for them that none of the "pro life" people apparently care at all if some children may inherit the sort of life they would be horrified to see anyone inflict on a dog.

 

It all seems a very conveniently compartmentilized morality.

Not all pro-life people are in favour of terrorise abortion doctors. Only a very tiny minority is. Also, I think it is very good that there are people who are fighting against small injustices without (seemingly) caring for bigger injustices; if there were none then all activists would just fight against the single biggest injustice on the Earth (probably the ACBL systems policy, but that is beside the point here). People are not automatically in favour of everything that they do not openly oppose.

 

Anyway it always comes back to the same question: when does life start? No need for ad hominems or quoting or mocking holy books. It seems common sense to condone 'murdering' 2, or 4, or 1024 human cells, it seems common sense to condemn murdering a perfectly formed human a few days before birth. The line is somewhere in between and it would be cool to say where it is.

[Trinidad]

The line is somewhere in between and it would be cool to say where it is.

Gwnn, lines are invented by humans. Nature has no lines. You cannot find a line where there is no line.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

I do not think that "pro-life" is a reasonable position for a man. When it is something that is never going to affect you, you should really keep out of it and let the people concerned decide for themselves, whether individually or en-masse.

[gwnn]

Gwnn, lines are invented by humans. Nature has no lines. You cannot find a line where there is no line.

 

Rik

Yes of course there is no objectively optimal place for the "line" but there still should be one (Greg House thought the line should be at birth, fair enough, that is also a line and as he said it is at least very clear cut and easy to enforce), right now it is at the end of the 1st trimester (I think?) and everyone who thinks it should be closer to inception is a complete retard who cannot stay out of other people's business and potentially kills doctors. Likewise, everyone who thinks the line should be farther from inception is a baby killer.

 

There is also no 'line' in nature for things like retirement, drinking age, voting, etc, but we still draw lines there and I'm happy we do.

[Winstonm]

I think you are all missing the point here. Those who are against abortion for religious reasons believe that it is equivalent to killing somebody. Why would you make it legal for someone to kill an innocent child if and only if the killer was raped recently? This is just a total failure to see things from the other side's point of view.

 

The fact that the other side's point of view is utterly inconsistent with fact and logic makes it harder, to be sure. But this view is not new or rare. It is shared by a large percentage of Americans.

 

This is inaccurate. Common belief in the supernatural establishes a common fence over which sides can be taken. This is a matter of emotions. Those who reject the supernatural have no fence.

[hrothgar]

Similarly, the belief that God does act on a day to day basis to influence the lives of both believers and non believers is a universal feature of christian belief. God sitting in judgement and providing temporal punishment is a fairly common theme. In the bible God, on multiple occasions, sends angels to help out his believers, and prophets to influence the course of events. These explicit acts are the exception, the rule being small spiritual nudges, but still, all of christianity believes that God can and does answer prayers. I am not sure what you intend to say in opposing the conception of an activist God, as you say, but I am pretty sure you are leaving mainstream Christian theology. I have no particluar knowledge of the ECLA, but it would be truly shocking if they have really abandoned a theological belief in an activist God, and way out of line with other Lutheran denominations.

 

With respect to angels and the Bible: I was always taught that most of the Bible should be viewed as allegory and fable. Stories about angels, parting the Red Sea and the like were not to be taken literally. (It should be noted that one of the great dividing lines in the schism between the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and the Missouri Synod focused on biblical literalism which the ELCA strongly rejected). The Church certainly does accept that miracles happened - most notably the Resurrection - however, the time of miracles ended long long ago.

 

With respect to the answering of prayers... Prayer (communing with God) is obviously part of the Lutheran Church and there is a belief that God answers prayers. However, I was always taught that you don't pray for material things like a winning lottery ticket. (God isn't going to rewrite the universe so you win the lottery and some other poor schmuck loses) Rather, you pray for understanding, acceptance, and comfort.

[TimG]

There are estimated 35,000 persons born every year in the US who were conceived in rape. Who are you to say that the world would be better if none of them ever existed?

I believe the position is that the world would be a better place if a woman has control over what takes place in her body, not that the world would be a better place with or without the lives of individuals who were conceived through rape.

[ArtK78]

A modest proposal - could we move the discussion of abortion and religion to another thread? This was, and still is, primarily a political thread, and, while there is no doubt a crossover between politics and religion, that was not the primary theme of this thread.

 

As a practical matter, one will never convince another of anything which is based on a religious belief.

 

Thanks.

[Vampyr]

A modest proposal - could we move the discussion of abortion and religion to another thread? This was, and still is, primarily a political thread, and, while there is no doubt a crossover between politics and religion, that was not the primary theme of this thread.

 

As a practical matter, one will never convince another of anything which is based on a religious belief.

 

This is true, and you are probably right that this discussion should be moved. It is important, however, to not lose sight of the fact that a large component of American politics consists of people whose views are informed by religious belief attempting to force their practices on others.

[Trinidad]

... just like in e.g. Afghanistan.

 

Rik

[ArtK78]

This is true, and you are probably right that this discussion should be moved. It is important, however, to not lose sight of the fact that a large component of American politics consists of people whose views are informed by religious belief attempting to force their practices on others.

All the more reason why we should not allow any participants of these Fora from trying to force their practices on us. Not that anyone here would ever attempt such a thing. :)

[lalldonn]

There are estimated 35,000 persons born every year in the US who were conceived in rape. Who are you to say that the world would be better if none of them ever existed?

You should read Freakonomics sometime.

[PassedOut]

This is true, and you are probably right that this discussion should be moved. It is important, however, to not lose sight of the fact that a large component of American politics consists of people whose views are informed by religious belief attempting to force their practices on others.

I regret posting the video containing the Mourdock/Romney comments. Seems it was bound to debase the discussion.

 

When I started this thread, it seemed to me that the chances of Romney eventually winning were much greater than Nate's 4:1 would indicate. Given that Bush was reelected by many of the same voters who will vote in November, it was hard to imagine that Romney would not pull in lots of those folks eventually.

 

Clearly Romney will say anything to get votes and he goes out of his way to let as many folks as possible project their own opinions on him now. Who knows how he will actually govern, if elected?

 

Of course folks projected their own beliefs on Obama too. Even though Obama ran as a centrist, many liberals have been dismayed that he's governed as a centrist. The right-wingers thought Obama was a radical in disguise (if elected, he was going to take away the guns, take away Rush Limbaugh's freedom of speech, etc., etc.), but now they think that his governing as a centrist is evidence of an even more diabolic plot -- to gain another term where Obama can then wreak his havoc.

;)

[dwar0123]

... just like in e.g. Afghanistan.

 

Rik

As much as I am leery of wading in on this topic, you and Vampyr seem to be overloading on emotive arguments while simultaneously completely missing the point.

 

I have no religious basis for my point of view, with respect to the idea of God I am as agnostic as you can get, with respect to any specific religion it would be fair to say I am an affirmed non-believer.

 

Rape is horrible, but so is murder, if you can convince me that aborting a fetus is not equivalent to killing a baby, then you might make some progress in convincing me of my error.

 

Causing a woman to have to carry an unwanted child to term is a horrible and tragic burden to lay on anyone, but when the only alternative is to kill an innocent human being, I am not sure how anyone can so casually dismiss the other point of view with these trite arguments.

[PassedOut]

The Post has a couple of good pieces that bear on Obama's stewardship:

 

1. By Fareed Zakaria: The U.S. economy is recovering well

 

[T]he IMF projects that the United States will be the strongest of the world’s rich economies. U.S. growth is forecast to average 3 percent, much stronger than that of Germany or France (1.2 percent) or even Canada (2.3 percent). Increasingly, the evidence suggests that the United States has come out of the financial crisis of 2008 in better shape than its peers — because of the actions of its government.

 

Perhaps the most important cause of America’s relative health is the Federal Reserve. Ben Bernanke understood the depths of the problem early and responded energetically and creatively. The clearest vindication of his actions has been that the European Central Bank, after charting the opposite course for three years with disastrous results, has adopted policies similar to the Fed’s — and averted a potential Lehman-like collapse in Europe. (Mitt Romney’s two most prominent academic advisers, Glenn Hubbard and Gregory Mankiw, seem to recognize this, but Romney apparently doesn’t. As recently as August the Republican presidential nominee repeated his criticisms of the Fed and promised to replace Bernanke at its helm.)

 

2. By Karen DeYoung: CIA veteran John Brennan transforms U.S. counterterrorism policy

 

One CIA colleague, former general counsel John Rizzo, recalled his rectitude surfacing in unexpected ways. Brennan once questioned Rizzo’s use of the “BCC” function in the agency’s e-mail system to send a blind copy of a message to a third party without the primary recipient’s knowledge.

 

“He wasn’t joking,” Rizzo said. “He regarded that as underhanded.”

 

Brennan, 57, was born in the gritty New Jersey town of North Bergen, across the Hudson River from Midtown Manhattan. His Irish-immigrant parents, now in their early 90s, were strict and devout Catholics, traits his brother Tom said Brennan embodied from an early age. “It was almost like I had two fathers,” Tom Brennan said.

 

John Brennan’s formative experiences at Fordham University, where he earned a degree in political science, included a summer in Indonesia, which has the world’s largest Muslim population, and a junior year at the American University in Cairo, where he studied Arabic and the region that would dominate his intelligence career and greatly influence his White House tenure.

 

...

 

Brennan was given responsibility in the White House for counterterrorism and homeland security, a position that required no Senate confirmation and had no well-defined duties. At the outset, colleagues said they wondered what his job would be.

 

But to a young administration new to the secret details of national security threats and responsibilities, Brennan was a godsend.

 

And for the man passed over for other posts, it was vindication. “I’ve been crucified by the left and the right, equally so,” and rejected by the Bush administration “because I was not seen as someone who was a team player,” Brennan said in the interview.

 

“I’m probably not a team player here, either,” he said of the Obama administration. “I tend to do what I think is right. But I find much more comfort, I guess, in the views and values of this president.”

I don't always agree with Obama, but I did not expect to. (Even Constance and I don't agree on everything -- with firearms being right at the top of the disagreement list). But I'm very comfortable with Obama as president, a far cry from how I felt during the Bush years.

[Winstonm]

... just like in e.g. Afghanistan.

 

Rik

c

I have made this argument only to hear in defense how Christianity is so much better than Islamic beliefs. Sigh. It is hard to score when the goalposts are constantly moving.

[Trinidad]

Causing a woman to have to carry an unwanted child to term is a horrible and tragic burden to lay on anyone, but when the only alternative is to kill an innocent human being, I am not sure how anyone can so casually dismiss the other point of view with these trite arguments.

Don't worry. I take serious point of views about moral subjects (abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, etc.) very serious and I respect them. I understand your argument, I respect it and I even think it is a valid one. I will address it below. Point of views that I do not take serious are: "Because my religion (or for that matter: any philosophy on life) says so and my religion is the only right one, this is how it is and it applies universally.". Why do I not take them seriously? Because if you ask why should that be so, you get the answer: "Because my religion says so...".

 

Now to your argument: I agree with your argument that you shouldn't kill any human being, whether in or out of the womb. And then inevitably you get to gwnn's point: Where is the line that marks the start of life?

 

My answer is: I don't know. In fact, I stated that there is not even such a line. I do know, though, that ministers, Mourdock or Mitt don't know either. And I know who knows best: MOM. She is the only person who has an idea of when life starts. She can feel what is going on inside her body and she knows best whether there is life or not. She is the expert.

 

In this discussion, these experts are sidelined. And they are sidelined with the fake argument: "Because my religion says so." This argument is used in various places, also in creationism vs evolution in education. As a scientist, that discussion concerns me. It hurts me to see how this fake argument damages education and science in the US. But in the end I can shrug my shoulders, shake my head about so much stupidity and act as if I don't care. It is not really personal, is it?

 

In the abortion discussion this is entirely different. The women -the experts- whom it concerns cannot possibly shrug their shoulders. Life changing decisions that they could make best themselves are made for them by people who know zip about such a decision and they base this on a fake argument. How can we ask these women -for whom this is very personal- to just shrug their shoulders, shake their heads and act as if they don't care? I find that inhumane.

 

Rik

[hrothgar]

The idea that God is intimately, and personally, involved in the creation of every human being goes back to the very first years of Christianity. Most famously in Jerimiah Chapter 1 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I set you apart.". I could look up a bunch of Psalms for you, but its late here. God is the Author of every individual human life, as well as human life generally, and that has been a feature of Christian belief since the very beginning. Similarly, the belief that God does act on a day to day basis to influence the lives of both believers and non believers is a universal feature of christian belief. God sitting in judgement and providing temporal punishment is a fairly common theme. In the bible God, on multiple occasions, sends angels to help out his believers, and prophets to influence the course of events. These explicit acts are the exception, the rule being small spiritual nudges, but still, all of christianity believes that God can and does answer prayers. I am not sure what you intend to say in opposing the conception of an activist God, as you say, but I am pretty sure you are leaving mainstream Christian theology. I have no particluar knowledge of the ECLA, but it would be truly shocking if they have really abandoned a theological belief in an activist God, and way out of line with other Lutheran denominations.

 

So, for kicks and giggles I checked in with one my co-workers who is

 

1. Still actively involved with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America

2. A sunday school teacher in said organization (This isn't any kind of ordained position, but it does represent an individual who is trusted to convey church teachings to the next generation)

 

His understanding matches my recollections.

 

1. No activist role for god

2. No miracles in the past couple thousands years

3. Prayer is for communion and comfort, not any kind of physical change

 

Here's a couple of examples that he threw out.

 

"If I were worried about losing my job, I wouldn't go and pray to God. God doesn't decided whether or not I am going to get fired. Mike does."

 

"A couple weeks back, my kid was sick. I prayed over it. I didn't pray for god to make my child better, I prayed to be patient with the situation. On occasion, everyone slips and you ask god to intercede and make the kid better. However, this isn't the way things work. The world moves as the world moves. We pray so that we can accept and understand."

 

This is the same stuff that I learned as a teen... (FWIW, while I only have direct experience of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, I don't think that any of this is particular out of line with mainline Protestant Theology in the US, at least not the strain that's taught in New England and the Mid Atlantic States)

 

So, next time you decide to talk for "all of Christianity", you might might want to consider that your track record is spotty at best... You're a very knowledgeable individual, but you over generalize like crazy (especially when you're pontificating about religion).